Well, it looks like California's Proposition 8 is going to pass, with only the absentee and provisional ballots left to count. That means that a goodly number of people will have their California marriages invalidated. Marriage is supposed to be about two people wanting to make a lifetime commitment to each other. Why should a certain set of people be treated like second class citizens?
This is extremely similar to the miscegenation laws in place a while ago. When Barack Obama was born, his parents' interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states. I'd like to coin a new word to describe California's new constitutional change: idegenation. It comes from the same general derivation as miscegenation, but instead of using the Latin miscēre for "mix", it uses idem for "same". California now has an idegenation law on its books.
Perhaps there needs to be another Million Man March on Washington, only this time with the new set of second class citizens: the homosexuals.
When referring to the person who sleeps next to me in bed, I think I may just refer to her as my Partner from now on. Sure, that person is of the opposite sex, but so what? Marriage just doesn't mean as much to me now as it did when it applied to all people.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Proposition H8 Video
A friend of mine just forwarded me a link to an interesting YouTube video (thanks, Keith!). It takes an existing commercial in favor of California's Proposition 8, the "gay marriage proposition", and replaces all occurrences of "gay marriage" with "interracial marriage":
At the end, it refers to this as Proposition H8 (pronounced "hate"). This is what I've been talking about here. This proposition is about denying people basic freedoms, while claiming to actually be re-instating freedoms. Let's not promote bigotry and prejudice in our laws, but rather promote tolerance and kindness.
At the end, it refers to this as Proposition H8 (pronounced "hate"). This is what I've been talking about here. This proposition is about denying people basic freedoms, while claiming to actually be re-instating freedoms. Let's not promote bigotry and prejudice in our laws, but rather promote tolerance and kindness.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Whom Does It Harm?
Okay, I'm now at a complete loss. Yesterday, while driving home, I passed through an intersection where all four corners were occupied by people holding yellow signs that read such things as "Prop 8 = Free Speech" and "Prop 8 = Religious Freedom". I don't get it.
For those who aren't familiar, California's Proposition 8 is referred to colloquially as the "Gay Marriage Ban". It's a fairly small and simple proposition that would change the California constitution to specify that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and a woman. It's designed to prevent same-sex couples from getting married. Gay marriage is something that I personally am in favor of, but I can usually see other peoples' point of view. I can sort of understand why others might be against it. What I don't understand is why those who are against it should force others to adhere to their tastes.
Getting back to the slogans on those signs: how could a gay marriage ban be free speech? I suppose it's freedom for the people who are imposing the ban, but what about the freedom of the people whose ability to get married are being banned? What an incredibly one-way freedom. The same goes for religious freedom: it's freedom for your religion, not others. You're imposing your will on others. Talking about Proposition 8, either for or against, is certainly be free, but the proposition itself most certainly does not represent freedom.
One of the major arguments of the pro-8 people is that there's always civil unions, which are "just like" marriage. Of course, that's not really the case; there are certain things to which married people are entitled that civil unions don't cover. But the whole argument smacks of a very similar saying: separate but equal. If I recall correctly, that was shot down pretty handily around forty years ago. I wonder if anybody's tried mentioning this to the proponents.
The whole thing just makes me angry. Whether you agree or not with a couple's right to get married, how does it harm you? Are you and your spouse going to love each other less because two same-sex people get married? Do you think you will receive fewer rights because of their marriage? If you're so against their rights, it's likely you'll never meet these people. How will you ever be affected in any way by them?
My wife (yes, I'm married to someone of the opposite sex) is of the opinion that all marriages should be completely eradicated from all legal books. As far as the law is concerned, only civil unions should be recognized. If you want to go to a church and have them perform a religious marriage ceremony, that's just fine. But a marriage, in and of itself, would be only a religious institution. Only the civil union would be legally binding.
I think she's got a good point.
But it all boils down to people's rights and equality. Claiming to talk about religious freedom and freedom of speech while all the time working hard to trample others' freedoms is just plain hypocritical. I wonder if we should ban such people.
For those who aren't familiar, California's Proposition 8 is referred to colloquially as the "Gay Marriage Ban". It's a fairly small and simple proposition that would change the California constitution to specify that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and a woman. It's designed to prevent same-sex couples from getting married. Gay marriage is something that I personally am in favor of, but I can usually see other peoples' point of view. I can sort of understand why others might be against it. What I don't understand is why those who are against it should force others to adhere to their tastes.
Getting back to the slogans on those signs: how could a gay marriage ban be free speech? I suppose it's freedom for the people who are imposing the ban, but what about the freedom of the people whose ability to get married are being banned? What an incredibly one-way freedom. The same goes for religious freedom: it's freedom for your religion, not others. You're imposing your will on others. Talking about Proposition 8, either for or against, is certainly be free, but the proposition itself most certainly does not represent freedom.
One of the major arguments of the pro-8 people is that there's always civil unions, which are "just like" marriage. Of course, that's not really the case; there are certain things to which married people are entitled that civil unions don't cover. But the whole argument smacks of a very similar saying: separate but equal. If I recall correctly, that was shot down pretty handily around forty years ago. I wonder if anybody's tried mentioning this to the proponents.
The whole thing just makes me angry. Whether you agree or not with a couple's right to get married, how does it harm you? Are you and your spouse going to love each other less because two same-sex people get married? Do you think you will receive fewer rights because of their marriage? If you're so against their rights, it's likely you'll never meet these people. How will you ever be affected in any way by them?
My wife (yes, I'm married to someone of the opposite sex) is of the opinion that all marriages should be completely eradicated from all legal books. As far as the law is concerned, only civil unions should be recognized. If you want to go to a church and have them perform a religious marriage ceremony, that's just fine. But a marriage, in and of itself, would be only a religious institution. Only the civil union would be legally binding.
I think she's got a good point.
But it all boils down to people's rights and equality. Claiming to talk about religious freedom and freedom of speech while all the time working hard to trample others' freedoms is just plain hypocritical. I wonder if we should ban such people.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Multimedia message
Well, now I've set myself up with my phone, so I can blog on the road. That should be interesting.
Getting Started
Okay, I admit I can be a little slow out of the gate on some things. I don't really understand why I was penalized for this behavior though.
I originally set this blog up while on a three week vacation to the upper-right quadrant of the United States. I managed to find the time to set it up, and I even changed some of the colors around, but I never got around to actually posting anything to it. I figured I could continue to take notes during the trip and regurgitate it all upon my return. Once back, I finally got around to making a post.
I originally set this blog up while on a three week vacation to the upper-right quadrant of the United States. I managed to find the time to set it up, and I even changed some of the colors around, but I never got around to actually posting anything to it. I figured I could continue to take notes during the trip and regurgitate it all upon my return. Once back, I finally got around to making a post.
Your blog at: http://ghotihed.blogspot.com/ has been identified as a potential spam blog. To correct this, please request a review by filling out the form at <blah-de-blah-de-blah>I suppose an empty blog is considered spam. I'm not sure what I'm selling with that kind of message. Perhaps a general ennui?.
"Act now and receive your own copy of nothing. No money down, nothing to buy. For just zilch plus shipping and handling (a nominal fee of zero), you too can be the proud owner of your very own nothing. Either that or 'No Tea'."Ah well, it appears to be fixed now. Perhaps I should work harder on doing things faster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
